In the US, a court ordered OpenAI to keep almost all of its users’ conversations with ChatGPT, including those that users thought had been permanently deleted. The ruling is part of a lawsuit brought by The New York Times against OpenAI for alleged copyright infringement. informs The Hill.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan upheld a preliminary ruling requiring the company to keep all user data as possible evidence in the case. Therefore, OpenAI must store billions of chats, even those that users have already deleted, challenging the perception of more than 70 million people about the privacy of their conversations.
ChatGPT is often used to discuss sensitive topics, from medical and psychological issues to personal relationships. Users had hoped to permanently delete their chat history, but a court order in January required the company to retain “all original data that would otherwise have been deleted” until the lawsuit was resolved.
Judge Stein upheld that claim, noting that it was “allowed to speculate” that some users deleted their chats to hide possible copyright infringement. He also believes that the retention of this data does not conflict with OpenAI’s privacy policy, which provides for the retention of information in cases where it is necessary to comply with legal requirements.
The decision has sparked outrage among human rights activists, who see it as an excessive intrusion into the privacy of millions of people. Experts warn that a dangerous precedent is being created: now any plaintiff can demand the storage of large data sets of uninvolved users for the benefit of their own case.
Many ChatGPT users express concern that their intimate or private conversations may be exposed without their knowledge or consent. At the same time, they have no real mechanisms to influence the process or object to the use of their data — previous attempts by individuals to intervene in the process were rejected by the court.
The New York Times claims that the retention of deleted chats is necessary because some users may have deleted them specifically to hide copyright violations. However, privacy advocates believe that the vast majority do so solely for reasons of personal information security.
Critics note that the situation is paradoxical: a publication that previously opposed mass surveillance is now demanding the creation of a giant database “the kind the NSA would only dream of” in order to win a copyright infringement case.
